SheeLilly#54: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Newsletter Podcast

1×

0:00

Current time: 0:00 / Total time: -1:10:16

-1:10:16

SheeLilly#54: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

You Know the thing!

Cindy Sheehan

Jul 25, 2023

Why Free Speech Absolutism is the Only Way Forward

Today on SheeLilly, we get to why Free Speech absolutism is imperative (among other topics).

It’s illegal and unconstitutional for elected officials and other people to think and act like free speech comes with asterisks. You know, “everyone has the right to free speech, BUT…” - those kinds of folks. That's not how it works. Free speech absolutism is the only way forward, and we’re going to tell you why.

If Irritable Bowel Syndrome had a face….Debbie Wasserman Schitz

Enemy of Free Speech

First off, let's establish what we mean by “free speech absolutism.” It's the belief that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't directly incite violence that leads to bodily injury, or death. No caveats, no asterisks, no exceptions. Now, some folks will argue that this kind of thinking is dangerous. They'll say things like “free speech doesn't give you the right to be terrible to people” or “we need to limit hate speech for the greater good.” To which SheeLilly says: nonsense.

The minute you start limiting speech for the greater good, you've lost the plot. Who decides what's “good” and what's “bad”? Who gets to make the rules? The government? Billionaire tech CEOs? The mob on (X) Twitter? We don't know about you, but we don't trust any of those options. And we certainly don't think they should be in charge of deciding what we’re allowed to say.

Let's talk about hate speech. Yes, it's abhorrent. Yes, it can hurt people. But guess what? Banning hate speech doesn't make it go away. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Look at countries like Germany and Canada, where hate speech laws are on the books. Have those laws erased bigotry and racism? Of course not. They've just driven those sentiments underground, where they fester and grow unchecked.

Plus, who gets to decide what “hate speech” is? Is it just slurs and insults? Or does it include criticism of religion or political ideology? Does it cover calling out things like misogyny or police brutality? Again, there's no clear answer. Which is why we need to err on the side of free speech. Yes, sometimes, it's messy. Yes, sometimes, it's uncomfortable. But it's also the only way to ensure that all voices are heard.

Speaking of voices, let's talk about the argument that free speech just gives a platform to terrible people. You know who else said that? The people in charge of apartheid South Africa. The people in charge of Jim Crow America. The people who wanted to keep women from voting. The people who wanted to block truth about vaccines. All of them used the “platform” argument to justify censorship. And yet, somehow, we all agree now that those folks were pretty f#cking terrible.

Here's the thing: free speech isn't just for us. It's for whoever wants to use it. Which means that, yeah, sometimes terrible people are going to say terrible things. But guess what? They're still people, and they still have the right to speak. And if we start limiting their speech, we're only giving them more power. We're saying that their ideas are so dangerous that we can't even let them be heard. That's a pretty bold claim.

So there you have it, our fellow political activists. Free speech absolutism is the only way forward. It may be messy, it may be ugly, but it's also the only way to ensure that everyone has a voice. We don't need asterisks or caveats or exceptions. We need a firm commitment to the idea that every person has the right to speak their mind. So go out there and speak yours. And defend the right of everyone else to do the same: especially if you find their speech disgusting!

We will go down fighting with our mouths flapping!

How about you?